Yeah, I guess it just depends on team's evaluations of them. I would imagine most teams do feel better about Orakpo and Maybin than people on here.

philfree

04-08-2009, 09:55 AM

That alone should kill the talk about #3 overall.

You don't take a project in Top 5, at any position.

I don't think it's fair to call Curry a project. The only thing that he hasn't proven he can do is be a consistant pass rusher. And that comes from not having the opportunity. That said I've seen several plays where he came off the edge and was all over the QB. I saw a new one yesterday where he nailed the QB and the ball popped out and landed in the arms of another defender. The ball went forward and past the LOS so it was probably called a pressure and an INT in the stats. What it was, was an awsome play. IMO if given the chance he will be able to rush the passer in the NFL. He won't be an every down pass rusher but he will be able to rush the passer IMO.

PhilFree:arrow:

DrRyan

04-08-2009, 09:56 AM

That alone should kill the talk about #3 overall.

You don't take a project in Top 5, at any position.

Errr...that is exactly what you take. Sanchez anyone? All everyone wanting to take Sanchez has talked about is "how he projects to be a top 'x' starter in this league." I guess I do not have a problem if they still go QB at #3 if they can't trade down and QB is their BPA, but Sanchez has started 1 year in college, so you you are drafting a project, period, point blank.

philfree

04-08-2009, 10:00 AM

Errr...that is exactly what you take. Sanchez anyone? All everyone wanting to take Sanchez has talked about is "how he projects to be a top 'x' starter in this league." I guess I do not have a problem if they still go QB at #3 if they can't trade down and QB is their BPA, but Sanchez has started 1 year in college, so you you are drafting a project, period, point blank.

Exactly! You don't take a QB with only 16 starts in the top three of the draft.
I would take Stafford if he fell to #3 and we couldn't get a trade done. I might take him no matter what.

PhilFree:arrow:

RustShack

04-08-2009, 10:02 AM

I don't think it's fair to call Curry a project. The only thing that he hasn't proven he can do is be a consistant pass rusher. And that comes from not having the opportunity. That said I've seen several plays where he came off the edge and was all over the QB. I saw a new one yesterday where he nailed the QB and the ball popped out and landed in the arms of another defender. The ball went forward and past the LOS so it was probably called a pressure and an INT in the stats. What it was, was an awsome play. IMO if given the chance he will be able to rush the passer in the NFL. He won't be an every down pass rusher but he will be able to rush the passer IMO.

PhilFree:arrow:

If you draft a LB that high he better be a pass rusher, if he hasn't done it before hes a project. Thats like drafting a spread QB and saying he can learn to play a Pro Style offense easy.

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 10:04 AM

Normally I agree, Curry goes closer to 10, but outside of the top 4(which don't fit), there isn't much if any elite talent. Curry might be the only real elite player left.

The thing is Curry isn't an elite player.

It's typical NFL conservatism at work. Marty Schottenheimer-ismos.

Everybody, universally, says Curry is a solid player - which basically means he's not spectacular. The scouts aren't enamored with what he DOES, they're enamored with what he DOESN'T do, which is make mistakes.

It's the epitome of the play-not-to-lose mentality that's infested the NFL.

OnTheWarpath58

04-08-2009, 10:05 AM

The thing is Curry isn't an elite player.

It's typical NFL conservatism at work. Marty Schottenheimer-ismos.

Everybody, universally, says Curry is a solid player - which basically means he's not spectacular. The scouts aren't enamored with what he DOES, they're enamored with what he DOESN'T do, which is make mistakes.

It's the epitome of the play-not-to-lose mentality that's infested the NFL.

Reptastic.

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 10:06 AM

Errr...that is exactly what you take. Sanchez anyone? All everyone wanting to take Sanchez has talked about is "how he projects to be a top 'x' starter in this league." I guess I do not have a problem if they still go QB at #3 if they can't trade down and QB is their BPA, but Sanchez has started 1 year in college, so you you are drafting a project, period, point blank.

Sanchez started a full season in college.

Curry hasn't started ONE GAME at the position most people want him to play.

There's no comparison at all.

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 10:07 AM

I don't think it's fair to call Curry a project. The only thing that he hasn't proven he can do is be a consistant pass rusher. And that comes from not having the opportunity. That said I've seen several plays where he came off the edge and was all over the QB. I saw a new one yesterday where he nailed the QB and the ball popped out and landed in the arms of another defender. The ball went forward and past the LOS so it was probably called a pressure and an INT in the stats. What it was, was an awsome play. IMO if given the chance he will be able to rush the passer in the NFL. He won't be an every down pass rusher but he will be able to rush the passer IMO.

PhilFree:arrow:

When you want him to do something he's really never done in his career, you might as well be asking him to change positions.

This is the very definition of project.

crazycoffey

04-08-2009, 10:07 AM

That alone should kill the talk about #3 overall.

You don't take a project in Top 5, at any position.

they are college draftees, every single one of them is a project. A rookie project. every team is going to see if their rookie can BECOME an NFL Player by teaching them the pro game and seeing if they can adjust to it.

Every single one of them = project.

Sorry htismaqe, I just don't like that argument in draft talks..... :D

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 10:08 AM

Exactly! You don't take a QB with only 16 starts in the top three of the draft.
I would take Stafford if he fell to #3 and we couldn't get a trade done. I might take him no matter what.

PhilFree:arrow:

And you don't take an ILB with 9 career sacks at #3 either.

You're FORCED to pick between the lesser of two evils.

And since the QB position carries infinitely more value than ILB, taking the QB makes far more sense.

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 10:08 AM

they are college draftees, every single one of them is a project. A rookie project. every team is going to see if their rookie can BECOME an NFL Player by teaching them the pro game and seeing if they can adjust to it.

Every single one of them = project.

Sorry htismaqe, I just don't like that argument in draft talks..... :D

Wrong.

Every draftee is a RISK. Only the ones that are being asked to do something they've not done before are "projects".

dirk digler

04-08-2009, 10:08 AM

If you draft a LB that high he better be a pass rusher, if he hasn't done it before hes a project. Thats like drafting a spread QB and saying he can learn to play a Pro Style offense easy.

That's a dumb thing to say. I am not a Curry lover but I bet most of the top D players in this draft have never played in a 3-4 so by your definition they are a project.

crazycoffey

04-08-2009, 10:09 AM

The thing is Curry isn't an elite player.

It's typical NFL conservatism at work. Marty Schottenheimer-ismos.

Everybody, universally, says Curry is a solid player - which basically means he's not spectacular. The scouts aren't enamored with what he DOES, they're enamored with what he DOESN'T do, which is make mistakes.

It's the epitome of the play-not-to-lose mentality that's infested the NFL.

Now this is how you argue against a pick.....

Brock

04-08-2009, 10:10 AM

I wonder how long it took Schlereth to say "Because he isn't a pass rusher" Segment over.

RustShack

04-08-2009, 10:10 AM

they are college draftees, every single one of them is a project. A rookie project. every team is going to see if their rookie can BECOME an NFL Player by teaching them the pro game and seeing if they can adjust to it.

Every single one of them = project.

Sorry htismaqe, I just don't like that argument in draft talks..... :D

Some more so than others, like when you draft someone and ask them to do what they haven't done before.

crazycoffey

04-08-2009, 10:10 AM

Wrong.

Every draftee is a RISK. Only the ones that are being asked to do something they've not done before are "projects".

which college prospect has played football at a professional level?

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 10:11 AM

That's a dumb thing to say. I am not a Curry lover but I bet most of the top D players in this draft have never played in a 3-4 so by your definition they are a project.

It's not about 3-4 vs. 4-3, it's about doing what they're suited for. An undersized 4-3 DE is being asked to do the same things in college that he would in the pros as a 3-4 OLB.

RustShack

04-08-2009, 10:12 AM

That's a dumb thing to say. I am not a Curry lover but I bet most of the top D players in this draft have never played in a 3-4 so by your definition they are a project.

Thats why most 3-4 OLB's are DE's, because they already have the pass rushing skill.

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 10:13 AM

which college prospect has played football at a professional level?

What does that have to do with anything?

You're talking about taking a risk by taking ANY player that's never played in the NFL before.

And I've already acknowledged that the risk is very real.

That is NOT and will NEVER BE the same as taking a player that did one thing in college and having him do something COMPLETELY different in the pros. That's a completely separate, and compounding, risk.

RustShack

04-08-2009, 10:13 AM

which college prospect has played football at a professional level?

You don't understand the concept of a raw prospect and someone thats ready for the Pro's do you?

dirk digler

04-08-2009, 10:13 AM

It's not about 3-4 vs. 4-3, it's about doing what they're suited for. An undersized 4-3 DE is being asked to do the same things in college that he would in the pros as a 3-4 OLB.

Doesn't a 3-4 OLB still play in coverage quite a bit? I am asking because I admit I don't know.

RustShack

04-08-2009, 10:14 AM

Doesn't a 3-4 OLB still play in coverage quite a bit? I am asking because I admit I don't know.

Not as much, but its not nearly as hard to learn to drop back and cover a TE as it is to learn how to rush the passer.

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 10:15 AM

Doesn't a 3-4 OLB still play in coverage quite a bit? I am asking because I admit I don't know.

It depends on the defense. Some do and some don't.

Besides, there's so much zone blitz in football nowadays, most DE's coming out of college have had to cover their fair share of passes.

dirk digler

04-08-2009, 10:17 AM

Not as much, but its not nearly as hard to learn to drop back and cover a TE as it is to learn how to rush the passer.

Ok but by your definition then they would be a project because you will have to teach them.

I think personally it would be easier to teach a player how to rush a passer then it would be to play in coverage.

dirk digler

04-08-2009, 10:18 AM

My example would be DT or Merriman. Those guys can rush the passer but couldn't\can't cover worth a shit.

RustShack

04-08-2009, 10:18 AM

Ok but by your definition then they would be a project because you will have to teach them.

I think personally it would be easier to teach a player how to rush a passer then it would be to play in coverage.

Your probably one of the very few to think that.

DrRyan

04-08-2009, 10:19 AM

Sanchez started a full season in college.

Curry hasn't started ONE GAME at the position most people want him to play.

There's no comparison at all.

Very nice try with the spin there. Shall we bring up the history of underclassmen with one year of college starting experience. Like I said in the first post in this thread, if we cannot trade down and the Chiefs have a QB as the BPA then, you take him. If not, you don't.

Please spare me the Sanchez is not a project rhetoric though. He is a project that has started 16 games in college.

RustShack

04-08-2009, 10:20 AM

My example would be DT or Merriman. Those guys can rush the passer but couldn't\can't cover worth a shit.

3-4 DE's are drafting for their pass rushing ability, not coverage. If your a coverage LB your a ILB.

RustShack

04-08-2009, 10:20 AM

Very nice try with the spin there. Shall we bring up the history of underclassmen with one year of college starting experience. Like I said in the first post in this thread, if we cannot trade down and the Chiefs have a QB as the BPA then, you take him. If not, you don't.

Please spare me the Sanchez is not a project rhetoric though. He is a project that has started 16 games in college.

Sure bring it in, but make sure you leave out the spread QB's. Oh wait, there isn't a list anymore after that is there?

crazycoffey

04-08-2009, 10:21 AM

You don't understand the concept of a raw prospect and someone thats ready for the Pro's do you?

I understand completely, do you understand that coaches and talent evaluators are looking these kids over to see if they have the skill to do what they want them to do at the next level?

I can't really say that curry could be a pass rusher, but I guess I'm just not as educated/studied/experienced as you, mecca, htis, or pioli....

BTW-I have no freakin idea who we take, and I can see the reasons why curry is viewed as a risk. As I stated in my first post of this thread, I just don't like the "he's never done that before" arguement. It's not conclusive enough for me. that's all.

crazycoffey

04-08-2009, 10:24 AM

Not as much, but its not nearly as hard to learn to drop back and cover a TE as it is to learn how to rush the passer.

Ok but by your definition then they would be a project because you will have to teach them.

I think personally it would be easier to teach a player how to rush a passer then it would be to play in coverage.

exactly

Your probably one of the very few to think that.

what, in here?
guess I am too then. I'd say it would have to depend on the skill set of the player/prospect we are talking about.

But, then again, there has been talk about hali moving to a 3-4 OLB, but there were several arguements against it, based on how hard it would be to teach him coverage.

This place cracks me up sometimes....

kcbubb

04-08-2009, 10:27 AM

The thing is Curry isn't an elite player.

It's typical NFL conservatism at work. Marty Schottenheimer-ismos.

Everybody, universally, says Curry is a solid player - which basically means he's not spectacular. The scouts aren't enamored with what he DOES, they're enamored with what he DOESN'T do, which is make mistakes.

It's the epitome of the play-not-to-lose mentality that's infested the NFL.

not true. they are enamored with his athletic ability, his playmaking ability, his character, his leadership and his ability to help a struggling team win games. Wake Forest was a much better team with Curry.

DrRyan

04-08-2009, 10:29 AM

Sure bring it in, but make sure you leave out the spread QB's. Oh wait, there isn't a list anymore after that is there?

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? Bring what in? Spread QBs, WTF are you talking about?

We are talking about Sanchez and him being a project, and you retort with talk of bring "it" in and spread QBs. Please elaborate...

DaneMcCloud

04-08-2009, 10:31 AM

not true. they are enamored with his athletic ability, his playmaking ability, his character, his leadership and his ability to help a struggling team win games. Wake Forest was a much better team with Curry.

"They" meaning whom? The talking heads? In an interview this week, Mayock said that the value in this draft is at the bottom of the first round because there isn't any elite talent in this draft.

That's something I've been saying since January.

1. "This is by far the worst year for the top 10 that I've seen. Down around 18, 20, you'll get every bit the player you'll get in the top 10 for a third of the price.''

3-4 DE's are drafting for their pass rushing ability, not coverage. If your a coverage LB your a ILB.

Well according to the Packers they are going to move Aaron Kampman to OLB in their new 3-4 scheme and they said that position has to be able to cover good.

Kampman Switching To 3-4 OLB

From Packers.com (http://www.packers.com/news/stories/2009/02/03/2/):

With an almost entirely new defensive coaching staff, the coaches on that side of the ball are evaluating the team’s existing personnel to see where players fit in the new system. Head Coach Mike McCarthy said Tuesday that defensive end Aaron Kampman will line up at outside linebacker in the base defense. Though it is too early to say who else will be playing there for the Packers in ‘09, Greene does know what will be required of them.

“They have to rush like big defensive ends against big offensive tackles, which are 6-6, 330, and so forth,” Greene said. “Obviously they get picked up by a running back every once in a while, but it’s a rare occasion when a running back will try to block an outside backer in the 3-4.

“An outside backer in a 3-4 has to play the run hard from the point of attack, and there are so many different blocking schemes that offenses try to get them on the perimeter. And an outside backer has to be able to cover. He’s got to be able to drop.

milkman

04-08-2009, 10:32 AM

exactly

what, in here?
guess I am too then. I'd say it would have to depend on the skill set of the player/prospect we are talking about.

But, then again, there has been talk about hali moving to a 3-4 OLB, but there were several arguements against it, based on how hard it would be to teach him coverage.

This place cracks me up sometimes....

I don't know about that whole "Hali can't learn to cover" argument, though I would think that he lacks the sthleticism needed to cover.

However, the biggest argument against movin Hali to OLB in a 3-4 is that he doesn't have the speed and athleticism to rush the passer as a stand up LB.

The only thing that Hali brings is a quick initial burst, which is effective agaisnt the lesser (generally) athletic RTs (as opposed to LTs).

Beyond that, he's virtually useless.

kcbubb

04-08-2009, 10:35 AM

Very nice try with the spin there. Shall we bring up the history of underclassmen with one year of college starting experience. Like I said in the first post in this thread, if we cannot trade down and the Chiefs have a QB as the BPA then, you take him. If not, you don't.

Please spare me the Sanchez is not a project rhetoric though. He is a project that has started 16 games in college.

Sure bring it in, but make sure you leave out the spread QB's. Oh wait, there isn't a list anymore after that is there?

JaMarcus Russell is probably the most recent underclassmen QB to struggle. He got a lot of hype too after a big bowl game performance. Do you remember? LSU beat Notre Dame and then Quinn dropped like a rock in the draft. Sanchez is getting a lot of hype right after a big bowl game too. What if Sanchez has a bad game in the bowl game? Are we even talking about him now? To me, his resume is too short.

But I would love for someone to trade up for him.

dirk digler

04-08-2009, 10:35 AM

exactly

what, in here?
guess I am too then. I'd say it would have to depend on the skill set of the player/prospect we are talking about.

But, then again, there has been talk about hali moving to a 3-4 OLB, but there were several arguements against it, based on how hard it would be to teach him coverage.

This place cracks me up sometimes....

Yep. Hali is going to struggle covering people because it is a totally different skill set then playing D-Line and rushing the QB every other play.

crazycoffey

04-08-2009, 10:37 AM

I don't know about that whole "Hali can't learn to cover" argument, though I would think that he lacks the sthleticism needed to cover.

However, the biggest argument against movin Hali to OLB in a 3-4 is that he doesn't have the speed and athleticism to rush the passer as a stand up LB.

The only thing that Hali brings is a quick initial burst, which is effective agaisnt the lesser (generally) athletic RTs (as opposed to LTs).

Beyond that, he's virtually useless.

IIRC - hali had greater success when rushing from a standing postion.
not trying to turn this into another hali discussion......

kcbubb

04-08-2009, 10:39 AM

"They" meaning whom? The talking heads? In an interview this week, Mayock said that the value in this draft is at the bottom of the first round because there isn't any elite talent in this draft.

That's something I've been saying since January.

1. "This is by far the worst year for the top 10 that I've seen. Down around 18, 20, you'll get every bit the player you'll get in the top 10 for a third of the price.''

hey, we agree on something! that's awesome. I've been saying that this is a weak draft at the top too. I think that in most drafts that Curry is a #10 pick, but since this draft is weak at the top, he moves up.

philfree

04-08-2009, 10:43 AM

When you want him to do something he's really never done in his career, you might as well be asking him to change positions.

This is the very definition of project.

He'll do more then one thing and those things he'll do very well. The thing about being able to rush the passer is that I'm starting believe he'll be able to do it. I've seen enough video of him in the backfield making tackles for loss and pressuring the QB that I think his skills will transfer to pass rushing. He's caused the QB to throw INTs because of his pressure and that's not just once. He's also pressured the QB out of the pocket into the arms of another defender who gets the glory of a sack that was really due to Currys pressure. IMO the 9 sack stat is misleading to Curry's ability. I don't think I'm the only person who thinks these things either. So to me Curry as an over all prospect isn't a project. And that combined with the other players available at the top of this draft him a top 5 pick.

PhilFree:arrow:

RustShack

04-08-2009, 10:44 AM

Oh man I can't believe how stupid people are sometimes. Every DE we've talked about drafting and using as an OLB is fast enough and athletic enough to cover, you can teach players like that to cover easily... especially since most of them have played in coverage during a zone blitz. So you bring up Hali who isn't fast enough or athletic enough and don't get why we can't use him?

:banghead:

You can teach someone athletic enough to cover a lot more easily than you can teach them to pass rush. Maybe in HS when they can plow throw anyone it might be easier to pass rush, but when you have to teach them the technique and moves its a lot harder.

kcbubb

04-08-2009, 10:53 AM

Yep. Hali is going to struggle covering people because it is a totally different skill set then playing D-Line and rushing the QB every other play.

each team is different. Look at Miami. They have a huge OLB in Roth, 6'4" 275. They don't ask him to play man coverage down the field. They do ask him to play zone in the flat and the hook to curl area and make open field tackles.

I think Hali can play the same role as Roth.

kcbubb

04-08-2009, 10:56 AM

He'll do more then one thing and those things he'll do very well. The thing about being able to rush the passer is that I'm starting believe he'll be able to do it. I've seen enough video of him in the backfield making tackles for loss and pressuring the QB that I think his skills will transfer to pass rushing. He's caused the QB to throw INTs because of his pressure and that's not just once. He's also pressured the QB out of the pocket into the arms of another defender who gets the glory of a sack that was really due to Currys pressure. IMO the 9 sack stat is misleading to Curry's ability. I don't think I'm the only person who thinks these things either. So to me Curry as an over all prospect isn't a project. And that combined with the other players available at the top of this draft him a top 5 pick.

PhilFree:arrow:

I agree. In the plays where I have seen Curry rush the QB, he has been good at it. He just hasn't had the opportunity very often.

milkman

04-08-2009, 11:01 AM

I agree. In the plays where I have seen Curry rush the QB, he has been good at it. He just hasn't had the opportunity very often.

He had clear paths to the QB in nearly every pass rush highlight.

There is one highlight where the QB feels the "pressure" and makes a bad throw, but the RB actually knocked Curry on his ass.

Getting to the passer isn't all about just running fast to the QB.
If he's expected to be a pass rusher, he's going to have to learn to do more than simply run through a hole in the line.

philfree

04-08-2009, 11:13 AM

He had clear paths to the QB in nearly every pass rush highlight.

There is one highlight where the QB feels the "pressure" and makes a bad throw, but the RB actually knocked Curry on his ass.

Getting to the passer isn't all about just running fast to the QB.
If he's expected to be a pass rusher, he's going to have to learn to do more than simply run through a hole in the line.

Curry takes on and sheds blocks so well I think he'll be able to beat the blocks. Curry is more then just a speed backer and more then one draft guru says that he can turn the corner. I watched enough of him that I think he'll bea ble to do it. Have you seen anything that says he won't be able to do it?

PhilFree:arrow:

RustShack

04-08-2009, 11:14 AM

Curry goes through blockers, something that wont happen in the NFL.

kcbubb

04-08-2009, 11:16 AM

I think it is more about physicality and athletic ability than just moves. I really think you can teach moves like rip, swim, spin or bull rush. It is hard to teach a player to be physical and it is impossible to teach a player to be athletic.

crazycoffey

04-08-2009, 11:18 AM

Oh man I can't believe how stupid people are sometimes. Every DE we've talked about drafting and using as an OLB is fast enough and athletic enough to cover, you can teach players like that to cover easily... especially since most of them have played in coverage during a zone blitz. So you bring up Hali who isn't fast enough or athletic enough and don't get why we can't use him?

:banghead:

You can teach someone athletic enough to cover a lot more easily than you can teach them to pass rush. Maybe in HS when they can plow throw anyone it might be easier to pass rush, but when you have to teach them the technique and moves its a lot harder.

really, it's easy to teach reading plays, screens, routes? watching the ball and staying with the TE while you do it? It's funny. I'm only arguing the points here, not saying Hali will/should be moved, but he was a smaller DE, that specialized more in the rush, that fits the majority of the DE-to LB talk. But because he was asked to do it from the stance only and on the stronger side, he suddenly doesn't have that potential he had coming out of college anymore? It makes me "stupid" to speculate this, how?

dirk digler

04-08-2009, 11:18 AM

Curry goes through blockers, something that wont happen in the NFL.

Very true.

I honestly have no idea what the Chiefs are going to do or who they should pick. It will be exciting to find out what happens.

philfree

04-08-2009, 11:21 AM

Curry goes through blockers, something that wont happen in the NFL.

He takes on blocks and sheds them. That's what's LBs are supposed to do isn't it? The guys a beast he'll be able to shed blocks in the NFL just fine." He had a clear path to the QB" , and he "runs through blockers" so he's fast enough to blow by blockers and bad enough to run through blockers but he won't we able to rush the passer? What......ever.

PhilFree:arrow:

RustShack

04-08-2009, 11:25 AM

He takes on blocks and sheds them. That's what's LBs are supposed to do isn't it? The guys a beast he'll be able to shed blocks in the NFL just fine." He had a clear path to the QB" , and he "runs through blockers" so he's fast enough to blow by blockers and bad enough to run through blockers but he won't we able to rush the passer? What......ever.

PhilFree:arrow:

If blowing through college RB's was all it took to be a good pass rusher we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, because our roster would already be full of those players.

milkman

04-08-2009, 11:26 AM

Curry takes on and sheds blocks so well I think he'll be able to beat the blocks. Curry is more then just a speed backer and more then one draft guru says that he can turn the corner. I watched enough of him that I think he'll bea ble to do it. Have you seen anything that says he won't be able to do it?

PhilFree:arrow:

No. I haven't seen anything that says he can't do it.

But neither have I seen anything that guarantees that he can, and that is what I'm debating.

As Parker said, you don't take what is essentially a project at #3.

If you take a player at #3 for a specific skillset, in this case pass rush, you have to have strong evidence that he has the neccessary skills to succeed.

You simply do not have that with Curry.

RustShack

04-08-2009, 11:28 AM

really, it's easy to teach reading plays, screens, routes? watching the ball and staying with the TE while you do it? It's funny. I'm only arguing the points here, not saying Hali will/should be moved, but he was a smaller DE, that specialized more in the rush, that fits the majority of the DE-to LB talk. But because he was asked to do it from the stance only and on the stronger side, he suddenly doesn't have that potential he had coming out of college anymore? It makes me "stupid" to speculate this, how?

DE/LB tweeners are 3-4 OLB's. OLB's are drafted for their pass rush ability, not their coverage ability. Coverage is a big bonus, not your main job as an OLB. Coverage who can occasionally get to the QB belong at ILB, and thats just what Curry is. Thats also a position that isn't a major need in a 3-4 defense, and can be found in free agency and later rounds of the draft. ILB's aren't really all that valuable and we could get away fine with who we already have on the roster at that position.

crazycoffey

04-08-2009, 11:40 AM

DE/LB tweeners are 3-4 OLB's. Don't ask me why its easier to learn to cover than it is to pass rush, I'm not a coach. OLB's are drafted for their pass rush ability, not their coverage ability. Coverage is a big bonus, not your main job as an OLB.

then why was it "stupid" to speculate that Hali could be an OLB in the 3-4? He was a tweener coming out, but was put on the line over RT and had slight success, and last year put on the line over LT and he was dominated. He has the skill to rush, and was projected a possible 3-4 OLB coming out of college. I guess I don't understand why this topic turns to impossible, because he had a really bad year.

RustShack

04-08-2009, 11:42 AM

then why was it "stupid" to speculate that Hali could be an OLB in the 3-4? He was a tweener coming out, but was put on the line over RT and had slight success, and last year put on the line over LT and he was dominated. He has the skill to rush, and was projected a possible 3-4 OLB coming out of college. I guess I don't understand why this topic turns to impossible, because he had a really bad year.

Hali just isn't athletic enough or fast enough to cover, he really isn't that good of a pass rusher either.

crazycoffey

04-08-2009, 11:57 AM

Hali just isn't athletic enough or fast enough to cover, he really isn't that good of a pass rusher either.

I agree he hasn't done our team very proud, but the point of argument in this thread is all about potential coming out of college. Coming out of college Hali was seen as a pass rusher who was undersized at DE and could occasionally drop into coverage. We've only used him on the line and it's proved now that it's unsuitable for Hali. If he were switched to OLB in a 3-4, than why is it stupid to speculate he could have more success? Isn't that what many are speculating about several smaller DE's in this draft?

I don't understand how he was athletic enough after his senior year, but now he's not....

same thing with Dorsey, it's been debated to death as well, but most agree he didn't do wonderful things his first year, one reason is possibly because he wasn't used "right". So if he's used "right" why is it hard to speculate he could/should have more success.

what was ryan leaf asked to do in the pros that he didn't do in college, leading to his bust status? Raji wasn't asked to be a dominate NT in the 3-4 in college, but he automatically can because of his size?

milkman

04-08-2009, 12:12 PM

I agree he hasn't done our team very proud, but the point of argument in this thread is all about potential coming out of college. Coming out of college Hali was seen as a pass rusher who was undersized at DE and could occasionally drop into coverage. We've only used him on the line and it's proved now that it's unsuitable for Hali. If he were switched to OLB in a 3-4, than why is it stupid to speculate he could have more success? Isn't that what many are speculating about several smaller DE's in this draft?

I don't understand how he was athletic enough after his senior year, but now he's not....

same thing with Dorsey, it's been debated to death as well, but most agree he didn't do wonderful things his first year, one reason is possibly because he wasn't used "right". So if he's used "right" why is it hard to speculate he could/should have more success.

what was ryan leaf asked to do in the pros that he didn't do in college, leading to his bust status? Raji wasn't asked to be a dominate NT in the 3-4 in college, but he automatically can because of his size?

Hali was considered athletic coming out of college?

Chiefnj2

04-08-2009, 12:20 PM

Hali isn't nearly as bad as people make him out to be.

His first two years with no help whatsoever from the DTs, but having a very good DE on the opposite side Hali put up pretty good LDE numbers - 7.5 and 8 sacks and 7 FF total. He's got a good motor and gives a good effort the entire game. You can win a championship with him at the LDE position with that type of production. He wasn't a top 10 pick. He isn't a RDE. He isn't a speed rusher. People shouldn't be expecting Mario Williams type numbers from him.

RustShack

04-08-2009, 12:20 PM

Hali was considered athletic coming out of college?

I always thought he was maxed out, a reach, and just had a high motor.

RustShack

04-08-2009, 12:21 PM

Hali isn't nearly as bad as people make him out to be.

His first two years with no help whatsoever from the DTs, but having a very good DE on the opposite side Hali put up pretty good LDE numbers - 7.5 and 8 sacks and 7 FF total. He's got a good motor and gives a good effort the entire game. You can win a championship with him at the LDE position with that type of production. He wasn't a top 10 pick. He isn't a RDE. He isn't a speed rusher. People shouldn't be expecting Mario Williams type numbers from him.

They shouldn't be expecting a OLB out of him either.

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 12:35 PM

Very nice try with the spin there. Shall we bring up the history of underclassmen with one year of college starting experience. Like I said in the first post in this thread, if we cannot trade down and the Chiefs have a QB as the BPA then, you take him. If not, you don't.

Please spare me the Sanchez is not a project rhetoric though. He is a project that has started 16 games in college.

It's not spin. Sanchez HAS played QB. Curry HAS NOT rushed the passer.

Not wanting to acknowledge the difference is the epitome of spin.

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 12:37 PM

can't really say that curry could be a pass rusher, but I guess I'm just not as educated/studied/experienced as you, mecca, htis, or pioli....

WHOA.

I NEVER said that Curry can't be a pass rusher.

I've said since Day 1 that EXPECTING him to be a pass rusher, when history has no evidence to support it, is folly.

He may very well turn into a pass rusher at the next level - he certainly has the athleticism for it. But BANKING on it happening isn't a risk I'm willing to take at #3.

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 12:38 PM

not true. they are enamored with his athletic ability, his playmaking ability, his character, his leadership and his ability to help a struggling team win games. Wake Forest was a much better team with Curry.

That's why the scouting reports all list "has very few holes in his game" near the top of his Positives...

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 12:39 PM

JaMarcus Russell is probably the most recent underclassmen QB to struggle. He got a lot of hype too after a big bowl game performance. Do you remember? LSU beat Notre Dame and then Quinn dropped like a rock in the draft. Sanchez is getting a lot of hype right after a big bowl game too. What if Sanchez has a bad game in the bowl game? Are we even talking about him now? To me, his resume is too short.

But I would love for someone to trade up for him.

There's absolutely ZERO comparison between Russell and Sanchez.

Russell is a monster physical specimen with a rocket arm and questions about his work ethic and aptitude.

Sanchez has a superior work ethic and aptitude with questions about his height and arm strength.

Give me a break.

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 12:41 PM

Hali just isn't athletic enough or fast enough to cover, he really isn't that good of a pass rusher either.

Hali is still on the team, and he certainly can't play any other position.

He might not be good, but he's going to play OLB.

philfree

04-08-2009, 01:09 PM

No. I haven't seen anything that says he can't do it.

But neither have I seen anything that guarantees that he can, and that is what I'm debating.

As Parker said, you don't take what is essentially a project at #3.

If you take a player at #3 for a specific skillset, in this case pass rush, you have to have strong evidence that he has the neccessary skills to succeed.

You simply do not have that with Curry.

In this case i'd take Curry for more then a single skill set and IMO he's not as much of a project as some would make him out to be. And then compared to what else is available he's not a bad pick by no means. Getting to the point where there's two players I take at #3 and that's Stafford or Curry.

PhilFree:arrow:

milkman

04-08-2009, 01:16 PM

In this case i'd take Curry for more then a single skill set and IMO he's not as much of a project as some would make him out to be. And then compared to what else is available he's not a bad pick by no means. Getting to the point where there's two players I take at #3 and that's Stafford or Curry.

PhilFree:arrow:

I'd rather take Mark Sanchez or BJ Raji.

I'd rather risk taking a player with a question mark or two who has greater potential for impact than play it "safe" and select a player who essentially plays a plug in position.

That's what it comes down to really.

You can take the Marty approach to the draft and draft not to lose.

I'm going all in.

philfree

04-08-2009, 01:25 PM

I'd rather take Mark Sanchez or BJ Raji.

I'd rather risk taking a player with a question mark or two who has greater potential for impact than play it "safe" and select a player who essentially plays a plug in position.

That's what it comes down to really.

You can take the Marty approach to the draft and draft not to lose.

I'm going all in.

I'd take Raji before Sanchez. There is just to much evidence that points to Sanchez being a bust. 16 games and coming out early just doesn't work out in the NFL. It could but if it's up to me I'm not risking my #3 pick on it. DTs have a pretty high bust rate too when drafted that high. As far as drafting to not lose is concerned to me drafting and putting the best players on the field is drafting to win. But you can spin it any way you like.

PhilFree:arrow:

Dave Lane

04-08-2009, 01:27 PM

Normally I agree, Curry goes closer to 10, but outside of the top 4(which don't fit), there isn't much if any elite talent. Curry might be the only real elite player left.

Why is he elite? He seems good in fact solid but elite?

doomy3

04-08-2009, 01:30 PM

I'd rather take Mark Sanchez or BJ Raji.

I'd rather risk taking a player with a question mark or two who has greater potential for impact than play it "safe" and select a player who essentially plays a plug in position.

That's what it comes down to really.

You can take the Marty approach to the draft and draft not to lose.

I'm going all in.

From what I've read in this thread, Curry isn't "safe" either. If a team drafts him and thinks he can rush the QB, that is certainly far from "safe." So, since it is a risk and there is good potential there, now are you on board with that?

kcbubb

04-08-2009, 01:34 PM

There's absolutely ZERO comparison between Russell and Sanchez.

Russell is a monster physical specimen with a rocket arm and questions about his work ethic and aptitude.

Sanchez has a superior work ethic and aptitude with questions about his height and arm strength.

Give me a break.

he didn't ask for comparisons. he asked for QBs who have flopped that came out early that didn't play in the spread.

bdeg

04-08-2009, 01:37 PM

Why is he elite? He seems good in fact solid but elite?

as elite as a 4-3 lb can be... what could he have done better given his assignments in college? I suppose that's all you can really ask, besides a few things like intensity, forcing fumbles etc.

kcbubb

04-08-2009, 01:39 PM

From what I've read in this thread, Curry isn't "safe" either. If a team drafts him and thinks he can rush the QB, that is certainly far from "safe." So, since it is a risk and there is good potential there, now are you on board with that?

that would my approach with Curry. if he plays to his athletic ability he should be able to rush the passer on a limited basis. Curry does have that upside that people who don't want draft him don't recognize. He is safer bc if that doesn't work you can get good value for him by playing him inside, but I think he can play OLB effectively in the 3-4.

milkman

04-08-2009, 01:40 PM

From what I've read in this thread, Curry isn't "safe" either. If a team drafts him and thinks he can rush the QB, that is certainly far from "safe." So, since it is a risk and there is good potential there, now are you on board with that?

That's an interesting question, but no.

I don't see him as a pass rusher, so I can't buy into the risk.

philfree

04-08-2009, 01:49 PM

Why is he elite? He seems good in fact solid but elite?

If not Stafford or an OT then who are these elite players in this draft that should be taken top 5 ahead of Curry?

PhilFree:arrow:

Pestilence

04-08-2009, 01:55 PM

There are no "elite" players in this draft.

crazycoffey

04-08-2009, 03:07 PM

There are no "elite" players in this draft.

there's also no "elite" talent evaluators on this board either.....

:p

Mecca

04-08-2009, 03:18 PM

I can not believe that Tamba Hali actually came up in this situation. No one ever listed him as a tweener because he is not fast or athletic.

And anyone who has ever thought he was overly athletic needs their head examined it was one of the biggest arguments against drafting him.

chiefs1111

04-08-2009, 03:41 PM

I can not believe that Tamba Hali actually came up in this situation. No one ever listed him as a tweener because he is not fast or athletic.

And anyone who has ever thought he was overly athletic needs their head examined it was one of the biggest arguments against drafting him.

Yeah taking Tamba was one of many bad Herm Edwards picks but it could be worse,we could have drafted Manny Lawson who has a whopping 5.5 sacks in 3 seasons.

crazycoffey

04-08-2009, 03:45 PM

I can not believe that Tamba Hali actually came up in this situation. No one ever listed him as a tweener because he is not fast or athletic.

And anyone who has ever thought he was overly athletic needs their head examined it was one of the biggest arguments against drafting him.

he was brought up because of the tweener comparisons needing to learn more skills to be an OLB in a 3-4 and someone like Curry needing to learn skills to be a better prospect too. If you read the thread, without just reading his name, you'd know that. No one said "overly Athletic" about Hali here in this thread. Just about teaching someone coverage skills or rushing skills.

But since it's a topic;

http://www.footballsfuture.com/2006/prospects/tamba_hali.html

athletic and versitility = solid DE

http://www.sportspool.com/football/draft/374.php

Tamba has really came into his own as a senior and is very versatile player with experience at defensive tackle position as well as dropping into coverage

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/5527972?print=true

Hali is best when given room to roam. He has an excellent closing burst and the redirection skills to make plays working down the line. He shows very good acceleration when dropping off to level two and showed in 2005 that he greatly improved his pass rush burst and rip-and-swim moves. He is an all-out hustler who can make plays in space on a consistent basis. He gets a quick push off the snap and while he certainly needs to shed better, he comes off the edge with good urgency

kiper, http://community.livejournal.com/greenbaypackers/417679.html

Is a versatile player who spentmost of his time at PSU at the power-end position (LDE) but also hassome experience dropping into coverage on zone blitzes, as well asmoving inside as a situational interior pass rusher.

Mecca

04-08-2009, 03:47 PM

And you think those are glowing reports that a guy can play LB? Most ends drop occasionally but when it's saying "has experience at DT" that should tell you he isn't a end/OLB tweener.

He's just frankly not athletic enough for that, it requires a very athletic end to move to OLB in the 3-4.

Mecca

04-08-2009, 03:48 PM

Yeah taking Tamba was one of many bad Herm Edwards picks but it could be worse,we could have drafted Manny Lawson who has a whopping 5.5 sacks in 3 seasons.

Manny Lawsons problem is he hasn't put on the sufficient weight thus he's not strong so he can easily be blocked out of plays.

crazycoffey

04-08-2009, 04:02 PM

And you think those are glowing reports that a guy can play LB? Most ends drop occasionally but when it's saying "has experience at DT" that should tell you he isn't a end/OLB tweener.

He's just frankly not athletic enough for that, it requires a very athletic end to move to OLB in the 3-4.

why is this arguement just black and white to you, it was a point of reference only about teaching players new skills. BTW, Hali is changing to OLB

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 04:04 PM

that would my approach with Curry. if he plays to his athletic ability he should be able to rush the passer on a limited basis. Curry does have that upside that people who don't want draft him don't recognize. He is safer bc if that doesn't work you can get good value for him by playing him inside, but I think he can play OLB effectively in the 3-4.

Who hasn't recognized his upside? Once again you have to manufacture support for your point.

We ALL recognize his upside. Most of us just don't view UPSIDE as being worthy of the #3 overall pick.

htismaqe

04-08-2009, 04:05 PM

why is this arguement just black and white to you, it was a point of reference only about teaching players new skills. BTW, Hali is changing to OLB

The same thing is coming from the other side.

LaChapelle

04-08-2009, 04:10 PM

Yeah taking Tamba was one of many bad Herm Edwards picks but it could be worse,we could have drafted Manny Lawson who has a whopping 5.5 sacks in 3 seasons.

I thought if it came down to be about even on their draft board. Carl would override the decision and go with the player that had a good story to tell. Seems like there was a few of those mixed in those rotten drafts of the last decade.